Author
Topic: 6D vs. 600D with good lenses? (Read 25132 times)

I've decided to buy a DSLR camera to advance my interest in photography. Here are some of my photos; to give you an idea of the style that appeals to me. http://500px.com/Black-Bird/sets .Mostly street, travel and architecture. I'm also wanting to get into portraits and more landscape. I realize I am all over the place but that is why I love photography, to capture life everywhere I see. After reading books on DSLR photography, many camera reviews, seeing sample shots and visiting shops; I came up with the following options and would like your help and advice. I've done my best to understand the considerations but forgive me if I am not just there yet. I'd love a full-frame because of image quality. Love to stay around $1500, but I don't want to find myself wanting to buy a full-frame within a short time. Prices are just roughly.

Which option or alternative for the body would you recommend? Am I too hasty dreaming of full-frames?

canon rumors FORUM

My favorite choices are 1 and 4. With 1 I would add the nifty 50 ($100) for the price it can't be beat. Yes I know of it short coming. 1 and 4 will be every similar in most ways. If you got the money I would get the 6D I think it will last you longer. but if your unsure of your commitment 4 is a better choice price wise and you should still be happy with the pictures.

Looks like you never use DSLR before, suggest to go with option 2 to start with, kit lens is not that bad and once you are familiar with it and will know which lens you will go next (better zoom lens or prime lens) . Do not buy expensive EF-S lens, for sure you will upgrade to FF camera and it will useless and hard to sell it.

otherwise as long as you can afford it go with option 1. may be can add 50/1.8

In good light, it'll be hard to distinguish a 600D + 17-55 shot from the 6D + 24-105. But if you have to raise the ISO above 400-800 or so, you'll notice the better IQ of FF sensor. Since you mention street, if that's in the evening/night, the 6D will be better. Also, you mention portraits, so be aware the crop factor applies to DoF, too - to get the DoF of an f/2.8 lens on FF, you need an f/1.8 lens on a crop sensor.

Don't forget to budget for accessories. For the types of photos you list, I'd consider as mandatory:

A good tripod and ballhead. Manfrotto at a minimum, or Induro or Benro

A good circular polarizer, B+W if possible. Adds contrast and saturation, blues up skies, reduces reflections.

A 10-stop ND filter. Long daytime exposures to blur people out of architecture shots.

RAW conversion software. DPP comes with the camera and is free, but not good for library management and kludgy to use. Lightroom is a popular choice.

For the filters, it's a good idea to get them in the largest size you think you'll need, and get step up rings. If you see a 16-35 II or 24-70 II in your future, you can get 82mm filters now (I started with 77mm and step ups from 72mm, 67mm and 58mm, then had to re-buy in the 82mm size later).

My inclination is to recommend the 6D + 24-105. But, you should consider your total budget. The accessories on my list could total $1000. A 600D + 17-55 with a good tripod is likely more useful than a 6D + 24-105 with no tripod or a cheap one.

No, you're not too hasty to be thinking about full-frame; they're not any more difficult to use than APS-C (in many ways they're easier - more controls are directly accessible from the exterior of the camera without having to mess around with menus, for instance) and in the case of the 6D it's not that much bigger. If you're new to dslrs I don't think there's any reason why you need to learn via an APS-C before moving "up". If you can afford it, and if their advantages suit your needs, go for it.

Based on a glance at your photos, I think you likely would benefit from the 6D. In low light where you can't or don't want to use a flash, but will need higher ISOs, the 6D will give you obviously superior performance to the 600D (or any other APS-C camera, esp. current Canon models) both in terms of noise and accuracy of focus. In many such situations - interiors of buildings, esp. churches - you will also benefit from the near-silent shutter of the 6D. Also, you can more easily isolate your subject/blur backgrounds with the 6D. If those three things don't matter much to you, you might as well stay with the 600D (or forget DSLRs altogether and go Micro 4/3 etc.).

If if I were you (but of course I'm not) I would take option 1. I trust you realize, in comparing the lenses you mention, that thanks to the APS-C crop factor the 24-105 on the 6D is a bit wider but quite a bit less long than the 18-135 you mention (the equivalent on FF to that lens on APS-C would be c. 28-216). If you go FF you may want to add something longer at some point, such as a 70-300.

And yes, you'll want some accessories, but - at the risk of getting laughed off the internet - I would suggest starting light, with a good RAW converter such as lightroom (if you're going to go to the expense of buying a dslr it would be a shame if you didn't shoot RAW) and later figure out what else you need. (For instance, depending on where you go and what you shoot, a tripod could simply be a nuisance, especially if you have lenses with good IS and know how to hold a camera steady.)

I'd get the 6d and 24-105 if I can. It's better to spend once and totally enjoy it. Just make sure you have the budget to include a decent tripod and some filters (ND,UV, GND, polarizer) and a speedlight. Don't forget to get a flash even if you've got a one hell of a high iso performer camera. For people shots, flash will do some tricks you can't do without it. Other lenses can come later bit by bit depending on what you think you need. For filters, get the 82mm size and some step rings except for UV.

canon rumors FORUM

I would say 6D and 24-105. I'd also say a tripod is useful but not 100% necessary these days. With the 6D you'll be able to get great shots at ISOs the 600D would cringe at. Add to that 3/4 stops of IS and, really, do you need a tripod? I have one but it rarely gets used (mostly because its big and heavy).

Nothing wrong with the 17-55 though it's an EF-S lens and that limits you to crop bodies. Shame cos it's a really nice lens. Even then you get shallower dof with the 24-105 on the 6D. I think the 6D is a bargain, I kinda wish I had waited and bought it instead of the 5D II just for that high ISO ability.

You could look into a second hand 5D II as a cheap alternative. In terms of IQ it's still one of the best out there.

The 18-135 has similar image quality as the 18-55, and shooting at 5.6 isn't going to give you a nice bokeh or very nice low light performance. My biggest issue is the 18-135. I'd sell the 135 for $300 and then just rock some primes if I had the choice. I sold some new t3i bodies on craigs list for $450, so that plus a 40mm f/2.8 ($150) plus a used tokina 11-16 ($515) plus a 100mm f/2 ($300)... @ less than $1500... I think that is a solid option. If you have more cash, the 15-85mm for around $550 would be a good option. I have a stable of lenses that I'm use and I have to think in advance what I might be shooting... and when I don't know... I just take my 24-105. So the 15-85 would be your do anything lens.

3 - Canon 600D + EF 50mm f/1.4 USM ($900)Could add more lenses later.

I think I covered this with option two and my dislike of the kit lens.

4 - Canon 600D + EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ($1200)This is also looking like a great option. I could add, $400 for a 50mm 1/4 prime for $1600 total.

No offense, but the 17-55 is usually sold for around 800 used, so plus $500 for the t3i and you are looking at 1300. But the 50mm f/1.4 can be found for $300... so your total is not off at $1600.

As for the performance... people rave about the 17-55mm and it is f/2.8. I have never used it, but that isn't a bad combination. You would have your wide angle and the 50mm can be adequate for portraits... but I would probably suggest an 85mm f/1.8 or possibly again, the 100mm f/2. Those would be better for portraits... with a big time lean towards the 85mm.

I thought of 7D kit with EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS at $1600. However considering 6D is full frame and the lense (24-105) it comes with, I am thinking 6D is a better option.

I wouldn't go with the 7D. I don't think you do sports photography or photography of quickly moving objects. So the advanced AF system would be wasted on you. Also, the 8 shots per second would be wasted... so you would be paying for features that you don't need and the picture quality isn't any better than a t2i because they share the same sensor. The 7D does have AFMA, so that would be a benefit, but I'd still push you towards a 6D over the 7D

I thought of used 5DM2, but they seem to be just as expensive without a lense as 6D with a lense.

The 6D is better at the same price. If you can save hundreds, then the 5D mkii is a better value and you can put the money towards your lenses.

I thought of 60D, but from what I read 600D would do just as well and cheaper.

Ditto the same argument with the 7D. You just won't use the advanced features. Having said that... I was selling 60D bodies for $600, so for $150 it isn't cost prohibitive to get a better camera, though picture quality will be about the same.

Though they are similar in features, one important advantage that a 60D has over a 600D is that it has a top LCD screen. To me, this is a no-go for the 600D. The top LCD allows you to quickly see what aperture, shutter speed, iso, focus mode, evaluation, etc, etc. You're at (as well as shots remaining and battery life). I simply wouldn't buy a DSLR without that.

Though they are similar in features, one important advantage that a 60D has over a 600D is that it has a top LCD screen. To me, this is a no-go for the 600D. The top LCD allows you to quickly see what aperture, shutter speed, iso, focus mode, evaluation, etc, etc. You're at (as well as shots remaining and battery life). I simply wouldn't buy a DSLR without that.

I use that daily... and I also use it to set my AF point. I love the shoulder LCD screen and I couldn't go back... but when I had my XS... I switched settings using the back LCD without too many issues. But I don't think I can go backwards.

I would say 6D and 24-105. I'd also say a tripod is useful but not 100% necessary these days. With the 6D you'll be able to get great shots at ISOs the 600D would cringe at. Add to that 3/4 stops of IS and, really, do you need a tripod? I have one but it rarely gets used (mostly because its big and heavy). 6Nothing wrong with the 17-55 though it's an EF-S lens and that limits you to crop bodies. Shame cos it's a really nice lens. Even then you get shallower dof with the 24-105 on the 6D. I think the 6D is a bargain, I kinda wish I had waited and bought it instead of the 5D II just for that high ISO ability.

You could look into a second hand 5D II as a cheap alternative. In terms of IQ it's still one of the best out there.

Tripod use depends entirely on how long your shutter speed needs to be. For long exposures, of course, you will need a tripod. It doesn't matter how high you can push your ISO. E.g., as Neuro said, architecture photography to get rid of those extra people, star trails, night photography where you want to record light trails. That said, yes, you're right, you can't go wrong between a 5D2 and 6D but for a little bit extra, 6D is worth every cents.

while i normally always recomend FF over crop if you are just starting out and are quite budget conciousI would say get a 600D and 18-55 kit now (the 600D is the best value for money 18mp APS-C canon you can get at the moment) and then get one of these bad boys from sigma when they come out

I would say 6D and 24-105. I'd also say a tripod is useful but not 100% necessary these days. With the 6D you'll be able to get great shots at ISOs the 600D would cringe at. Add to that 3/4 stops of IS and, really, do you need a tripod? I have one but it rarely gets used (mostly because its big and heavy). 6Nothing wrong with the 17-55 though it's an EF-S lens and that limits you to crop bodies. Shame cos it's a really nice lens. Even then you get shallower dof with the 24-105 on the 6D. I think the 6D is a bargain, I kinda wish I had waited and bought it instead of the 5D II just for that high ISO ability.

You could look into a second hand 5D II as a cheap alternative. In terms of IQ it's still one of the best out there.

Tripod use depends entirely on how long your shutter speed needs to be. For long exposures, of course, you will need a tripod. It doesn't matter how high you can push your ISO. E.g., as Neuro said, architecture photography to get rid of those extra people, star trails, night photography where you want to record light trails. That said, yes, you're right, you can't go wrong between a 5D2 and 6D but for a little bit extra, 6D is worth every cents.

Yeah, depends on OPs style of shooting. I doubt as a newbie he would be out doing star trails etc with a 600D and 18-55. my point is for all general purposes you can manage without a tripod. It is only really specialized use like you said long shutter speeds where you will undeniably need a tripod. Therefore a 6D and 24-105 covers the widest range of applications.

More flexibility in low light performance and range both wide and tele with option #1. On the 600d you would have had to find a lens that is 15-65mm to match the same focal length of 24-105mm on 6D. DOF of f/4 on 6D is also compared to f/2.5 on 600D. The boost in ISO performance and overall look of the images is also better with full frame, but I wouldn't spend that kind of money for street shots if I could barely afford it, you should make the bigger purchases if you know your finances can take the hit or if it will be an investment that pays for itself short term. But of course, in the end, you still buy what you want because it's your money.